The Intergenerational Effects on School Attendance and Child Labor (2SLS)
| Dependent Variable | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Child Is Currently Attending School (1) | Child Participates in Market Work (2) | Child Participates in Market and Domestic Work (3) | |
| Panel A: Mothers Sample | |||
| Mother’s schooling | −0.001 [0.002] | 0.004 [0.003] | 0.003 [0.003] |
| F-test | 14.04 | 11.17 | 11.17 |
| p-value | 0.002 | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Observations | 91,480 | 53,790 | 53,790 |
| Panel B: Fathers Sample | |||
| Father’s schooling | 0.003* [0.001] | 0.004 [0.004] | 0.002 [0.003] |
| F-test | 25.13 | 23.77 | 23.77 |
| p-value | 0.000 | 0.000 | [0.003]0.000 |
| Observations | 50,026 | 24,392 | 24,392 |
↵Notes: Each cell represents an estimate from a separate regression; robust standard errors clustered by age in 1980 appear in brackets. All regressions include linear splines in parent age in 1980 (coefficients not shown), fixed effects for child ages 7–15 (omitted age is six), and a binary indicator for girls. The sample size in Columns 2 and 3 is smaller than in Column 1 because labor supply data is not collected from persons younger than ten years of age at the time of the census; accordingly, the fixed effects for child age are applied to ages 11−15, with ten as the omitted age in the child labor regressions. The two formulations of child labor differ by how they treat domestic work performed by children. See text for more details. The instrument for parent schooling is the discontinuity at age 15 in 1980. The reported F-statistics refer to this excluded instrument. Statistical significance: *p < 0.10, **p < 0.05, ***p < 0.01.